linux-kernel - Re: ABI coupling to hypervisors via CONFIG

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070309210430.GA14905@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 9 Mar 2007 22:04:30 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: ABI coupling to hypervisors via CONFIG_PARAVIRT

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> So please
> 
>  - point out things that are badly done. [...]

the thing badly done is fundamental and it trumps any other small 
technological detail complaint i have, because it affects the 
development and maintainance model: to promise backwards compatibility 
to 4-5 different hypervisors, using separate ABIs for each. /One/ such 
ABI would be complex enough to maintain IMO.

( if there is no backwards compatibility promise then i have zero
  complaints: then paravirt_ops + the hypercall just becomes another API
  internal to Linux that we can improve at will. But that is not
  realistic: if we provide CONFIG_VMI today, people will expect to have
  CONFIG_VMI in the future too. )

as i said in the very, very first email about this topic: /one/ new ABI 
towards hypervisors should be introduced step by step, and via concensus 
across hypervisors. We should treat the hypercall ABI very similar to 
the system call ABI: the system call ABI is largely based on a concensus 
between applications.

[ i think apic_write() granularity is bad too - but that is a small
  technical issue, dwarved by the ABI issues that impact the development
  model IMO. ]

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/